tbuckley/cabot-search huggingface dataset:
Delineating a serotonin 1B receptor circuit for appetite suppression in mice
Authors: Li Li, Steven C. Wyler, Luis A. León-Mercado, Baijie Xu, Youjin Oh, None Swati, Xiameng Chen, Rong Wan, Amanda G. Arnold, Lin Jia, Guanlin Wang, Katherine Nautiyal, René Hen, Jong-Woo Sohn, Chen Liu
Journal: The Journal of Experimental Medicine (2022)

Triptans are a class of commonly prescribed antimigraine drugs. Here, we report a previously unrecognized role for them to suppress appetite in mice. In particular, frovatriptan treatment reduces food intake and body weight in diet-induced obese mice. Moreover, the anorectic effect depends on the serotonin (5-HT) 1B receptor (Htr1b). By ablating Htr1b in four different brain regions, we demonstrate that Htr1b engages in spatiotemporally segregated neural pathways to regulate postnatal growth and food intake. Moreover, Htr1b in AgRP neurons in the arcuate nucleus of the hypothalamus (ARH) contributes to the hypophagic effects of HTR1B agonists. To further study the anorexigenic Htr1b circuit, we generated Htr1b-Cre mice. We find that ARH Htr1b neurons bidirectionally regulate food intake in vivo. Furthermore, single-nucleus RNA sequencing analyses revealed that Htr1b marks a subset of AgRP neurons. Finally, we used an intersectional approach to specifically target these neurons (Htr1bAgRP neurons). We show that they regulate food intake, in part, through a Htr1bAgRP→PVH circuit.
COMPERA 2.0 risk stratification in medically managed chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension
Authors: Harrison Stubbs, Stephanie Lua, Melanie Brewis, Martin Johnson, Colin Church
Journal: European Respiratory Journal (2022)

<b>The newly proposed COMPERA 2.0 risk stratification model provides improved clinical refinement and is applicable in medically managed chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH).</b>https://bit.ly/3OPHyXU
18F-FDG Brain PET Findings in Narcolepsy Type 2
Authors: Robin T. Varughese, Sanjeev V. Kothare, Ana Marija Franceschi
Journal: Clinical Nuclear Medicine (2022)

Abstract A 16-year-old adolescent boy with extensive travel throughout West Africa presented with a 6-year history of social withdrawal, anhedonia, and daytime sleepiness. The patient’s electroencephalography was normal. Initial MRI revealed small pituitary gland and left temporal developmental venous anomaly. Subsequently obtained 18 F-FDG brain PET was notable for markedly severe hypometabolism in the brainstem. Further workup revealed a normal orexin, autoimmune encephalitis panel, and negative titers for Trypanosoma brucei and cruzi in the CSF. Outpatient sleep study showed mild obstructive sleep apnea, and multiple sleep latency test revealed reduced mean sleep latency at 7 minutes with sleep-onset REM in 3/5 naps, findings consistent with narcolepsy type 2.
Changes in Hospital-Based Care Seeking for Acute Mental Health Concerns Among Children and Adolescents During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Ontario, Canada, Through September 2021
Authors: Natasha Ruth Saunders, Therese A. Stukel, Rachel Strauss, Longdi Fu, Eyal Cohen, Astrid Guttmann, Alene Toulany
Journal: JAMA Network Open (2022)

This cross-sectional study assesses hospitalization and emergency department visit rates among children and adolescents seeking mental health care in pediatric and nonpediatric hospitals in Ontario, Canada, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The performance of artificial intelligence-driven technologies in diagnosing mental disorders: an umbrella review
Authors: Alaa Abd-alrazaq, Dari Alhuwail, Jens Schneider, Carla T. Toro, Arfan Ahmed, Mahmood Alzubaidi, Mohannad Alajlani, Mowafa Househ
Journal: npj Digital Medicine (2022)

Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) has been successfully exploited in diagnosing many mental disorders. Numerous systematic reviews summarize the evidence on the accuracy of AI models in diagnosing different mental disorders. This umbrella review aims to synthesize results of previous systematic reviews on the performance of AI models in diagnosing mental disorders. To identify relevant systematic reviews, we searched 11 electronic databases, checked the reference list of the included reviews, and checked the reviews that cited the included reviews. Two reviewers independently selected the relevant reviews, extracted the data from them, and appraised their quality. We synthesized the extracted data using the narrative approach. We included 15 systematic reviews of 852 citations identified. The included reviews assessed the performance of AI models in diagnosing Alzheimer’s disease ( n = 7), mild cognitive impairment ( n = 6), schizophrenia ( n = 3), bipolar disease ( n = 2), autism spectrum disorder ( n = 1), obsessive-compulsive disorder ( n = 1), post-traumatic stress disorder ( n = 1), and psychotic disorders ( n = 1). The performance of the AI models in diagnosing these mental disorders ranged between 21% and 100%. AI technologies offer great promise in diagnosing mental health disorders. The reported performance metrics paint a vivid picture of a bright future for AI in this field. Healthcare professionals in the field should cautiously and consciously begin to explore the opportunities of AI-based tools for their daily routine. It would also be encouraging to see a greater number of meta-analyses and further systematic reviews on performance of AI models in diagnosing other common mental disorders such as depression and anxiety.
Improving Access to Genital Gender-Affirming Surgery—The Need for Comprehensive Gender Health Centers of Excellence
Authors: John T. Stranix, Rachel Bluebond-Langner
Journal: JAMA Surgery (2022)

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA Surgery HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Podcast Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA Surgery journal
Response Rate and Safety of a Neoadjuvant Pertuzumab, Atezolizumab, Docetaxel, and Trastuzumab Regimen for Patients With <i>ERBB2</i>-Positive Stage II/III Breast Cancer
Authors: Hee Kyung Ahn, Sung Hoon Sim, Koung Jin Suh, Min Hwan Kim, Jae Ho Jeong, Ji-Yeon Kim, Dae-Won Lee, Jin-Hee Ahn, Heejung Chae, Kyung-Hun Lee, Jee Hyun Kim, Keun Seok Lee, Joo Hyuk Sohn, Yoon-La Choi, Seock-Ah Im, Kyung Hae Jung, Yeon Hee Park
Journal: JAMA Oncology (2022)

Addition of immune checkpoint inhibitors to anti-ERBB2 treatment has shown synergistic efficacy in preclinical studies and is thus worth investigating as a neoadjuvant treatment to maximize efficacy and to minimize toxic effects.
British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the management of functional dyspepsia
Authors: Christopher J Black, Peter A Paine, Anurag Agrawal, Imran Aziz, Maria P Eugenicos, Lesley A Houghton, Pali Hungin, Ross Overshott, Dipesh H Vasant, Sheryl Rudd, Richard C Winning, Maura Corsetti, Alexander C Ford
Journal: Gut (2022)

Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a common disorder of gut-brain interaction, affecting approximately 7% of individuals in the community, with most patients managed in primary care. The last British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) guideline for the management of dyspepsia was published in 1996. In the interim, substantial advances have been made in understanding the complex pathophysiology of FD, and there has been a considerable amount of new evidence published concerning its diagnosis and classification, with the advent of the Rome IV criteria, and management. The primary aim of this guideline, commissioned by the BSG, is to review and summarise the current evidence to inform and guide clinical practice, by providing a practical framework for evidence-based diagnosis and treatment of patients. The approach to investigating the patient presenting with dyspepsia is discussed, and efficacy of drugs in FD summarised based on evidence derived from a comprehensive search of the medical literature, which was used to inform an update of a series of pairwise and network meta-analyses. Specific recommendations have been made according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. These provide both the strength of the recommendations and the overall quality of evidence. Finally, in this guideline, we consider novel treatments that are in development, as well as highlighting areas of unmet need and priorities for future research.
County-Level Social Vulnerability and Emergency Department Visits for Firearm Injuries — 10 U.S. Jurisdictions, January 1, 2018–December 31, 2021
Authors: Miriam E. Van Dyke, May S. Chen, Michael Sheppard, J. Danielle Sharpe, Lakshmi Radhakrishnan, Linda L. Dahlberg, Thomas R. Simon, Marissa L. Zwald
Journal: MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (2022)

At least 100,000 persons in the United States experience a fatal or nonfatal firearm injury each year.* CDC examined rates of firearm injury emergency department (ED) visits by community social vulnerability using data from CDC's Firearm Injury Surveillance Through Emergency Rooms (FASTER) program.† ED visit data, shared with CDC's National Syndromic Surveillance Program (NSSP)§ during 2018-2021, were analyzed for 647 counties in 10 FASTER-funded jurisdictions.¶ County-level social vulnerability data were obtained from the 2018 Social Vulnerability Index (SVI).** Rates of ED visits for firearm injuries (number of firearm injury ED visits per 100,000 ED visits) were calculated across tertile levels of social vulnerability. Negative binomial regression models were used to estimate rate ratios (RRs) and associated 95% CIs comparing rates of ED visits across social vulnerability levels. During 2018-2021, compared with rates in counties with low overall social vulnerability, the firearm injury ED visit rate was 1.34 times as high in counties with medium social vulnerability and 1.80 times as high in counties with high social vulnerability. Similar patterns were observed for the SVI themes of socioeconomic status and housing type and transportation, but not for the themes of household composition and disability status or racial and ethnic minority status and language proficiency. More timely data†† on firearm injury ED visits by social vulnerability can help identify communities disproportionately experiencing elevated firearm injury rates. States and communities can use the best available evidence to implement comprehensive prevention strategies that address inequities in the social and structural conditions that contribute to risk for violence, including creating protective community environments, strengthening economic supports, and intervening to reduce harms and prevent future risk (e.g., with hospital-based violence intervention programs) (1,2).
The Young and the Breathless
Authors: Jacob J. Mayfield, Danelle Hidano, J. Alexander Torres, Mathilde H. Pioro, Catherine M. Otto
Journal: New England Journal of Medicine (2022)

A previously healthy 18-year-old woman presented to a primary care provider with a 2-month history of headaches and midscapular pain. The midscapular pain was worse at night and lessened with exercise.
Statin Eligibility for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease According to 2021 European Prevention Guidelines Compared With Other International Guidelines
Authors: Martin Bødtker Mortensen, Anne Tybjærg-Hansen, Børge G. Nordestgaard
Journal: JAMA Cardiology (2022)

For primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), the 2021 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines on statin use (hereafter European-ESC) recommend a new risk model (Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation 2 [European-SCORE2]) as well as new age-specific treatment thresholds (≥7.5% 10-year ASCVD risk if aged 40-49 years and ≥10% if aged 50-69 years).To compare the clinical performance of the 2021 European-ESC, American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (hereafter US-ACC/AHA), UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (UK-NICE), and 2019 ESC/European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) guidelines in apparently healthy individuals.This population-based contemporary cohort study included 66 909 individuals from the Copenhagen General Population Study. Participants were aged 40 to 69 years and were free of ASCVD, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and statin use at baseline in 2003 to 2015. Mean follow-up time was 9.2 years. Data were analyzed from November 2021 to April 2022.Statin treatment according to guideline criteria.Calibration of risk calculators, statin eligibility, sensitivity, and specificity for ASCVD events according to guideline criteria.During follow-up, a range of 2962 to 4277 nonfatal and fatal ASCVD events was observed, as defined by the 2021 European-SCORE2, US pooled cohort equations (PCE), and UK-QRISK3 models, and 180 fatal ASCVD events were noted as defined by the 2019 European-SCORE1 model. European-SCORE2 was slightly better calibrated with a predicted/observed ASCVD event ratio of 0.8 vs 1.3 for US-PCE, 1.3 for UK-QRISK3, and 5.8 for European-SCORE1. For primary prevention class I recommendations in individuals aged 40 to 69 years, 2862 of 66 909 (4%) qualified for statins according to the 2021 European-ESC guidelines compared with 23 029 (34%) with US-ACC/AHA, 17 659 (26%) with UK-NICE, and 13 496 (20%) with 2019 European-ESC/EAS guidelines, with associated sensitivities for detecting future European-SCORE2-defined ASCVD events of 12%, 60%, 51%, and 36%, respectively. The sensitivity of the European-ESC guidelines was improved considerably by lowering the treatment thresholds, resulting in smaller losses in specificity. To obtain similar clinical performance with the 2021 European-ESC guidelines as in the other guidelines, the threshold with European-SCORE2 should be reduced to 5% overall to match US-ACC/AHA, to 6% to match UK-NICE, and to 7% to match 2019 European-ESC/EAS guidelines.Despite an improved European-SCORE2 prediction model, the new treatment thresholds in the 2021 European-ESC guidelines dramatically reduce eligibility for primary prevention with statins in low-risk European countries. Using lower treatment thresholds can improve overall guideline performance.
Uterine Transplant—Progress, but Concerns Remain
Authors: Rachel C. Forbes, Seth Karp
Journal: JAMA Surgery (2022)

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA Surgery HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Podcast Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA Surgery journal
Global Association of COVID-19 Pandemic Measures With Cancer Screening
Authors: Federica Teglia, Marco Angelini, Laura Astolfi, Giulia Casolari, Paolo Boffetta
Journal: JAMA Oncology (2022)

Public health services, including cancer screening tests, have been affected by the onset of the COVID-19 epidemic.To investigate the pandemic's association with cancer screening worldwide.In this systematic review and meta-analysis, databases such as PubMed, ProQuest, and Scopus were searched comprehensively for articles published between January 1, 2020, and December 12, 2021.Observational studies and articles that reported data from cancer registries that compared the number of screening tests performed before and during the pandemic for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer were included.Two pairs of independent reviewers extracted data from the selected studies. The weighted average of the percentage variation was calculated between the 2 periods to assess the change in the number of cancer screening tests performed during the pandemic. Stratified analysis was performed by geographic area, period, and type of setting. The systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.The main outcome was the weighted average percentage variation in the number of screening tests performed between January and October 2020 compared with the previous period.The review comprised 39 publications. There was an overall decrease of -46.7% (95% CI, -55.5% to -37.8%) for breast cancer screening, -44.9% (95% CI, -53.8% to -36.1%) for colorectal cancer screening, and -51.8% (95% CI, -64.7% to -38.9%) for cervical cancer screening during the pandemic. For all 3 cancers, a U-shaped temporal trend was identified; for colorectal cancer, a significant decrease was still apparent after May 2020 (in June to October, the decrease was -23.4% [95% CI, -44.4% to -2.4%]). Differences by geographic area and screening setting were also identified.A summary estimate of the downscaling of cancer screening tests since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic is provided in this systematic review and meta-analysis. This could be associated with an increase in the number of avoidable cancer deaths. Effective interventions are required to restore the capacity of screening services to the prepandemic level.
Diabetes Care Among Older Adults Enrolled in Medicare Advantage Versus Traditional Medicare Fee-For-Service Plans: The Diabetes Collaborative Registry
Authors: Utibe R. Essien, Yuanyuan Tang, Jose F. Figueroa, Terrence Michael A. Litam, Fengming Tang, Philip G. Jones, Ravi Patel, Rishi K. Wadhera, Nihar R. Desai, Sanjeev N. Mehta, Mikhail N. Kosiborod, Muthiah Vaduganathan
Journal: Diabetes Care (2022)

OBJECTIVE Medicare Advantage (MA), Medicare’s managed care program, is quickly expanding, yet little is known about diabetes care quality delivered under MA compared with traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This was a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries ≥65 years old enrolled in the Diabetes Collaborative Registry from 2014 to 2019 with type 2 diabetes treated with one or more antihyperglycemic therapies. Quality measures, cardiometabolic risk factor control, and antihyperglycemic prescription patterns were compared between Medicare plan groups, adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical factors. RESULTS Among 345,911 Medicare beneficiaries, 229,598 (66%) were enrolled in FFS and 116,313 (34%) in MA plans (for ≥1 month). MA beneficiaries were more likely to receive ACE inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers for coronary artery disease, tobacco cessation counseling, and screening for retinopathy, foot care, and kidney disease (adjusted P ≤ 0.001 for all). MA beneficiaries had modestly but significantly higher systolic blood pressure (+0.2 mmHg), LDL cholesterol (+2.6 mg/dL), and HbA1c (+0.1%) (adjusted P &amp;lt; 0.01 for all). MA beneficiaries were independently less likely to receive glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (6.9% vs. 9.0%; adjusted odds ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.77–0.84) and sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (5.4% vs. 6.7%; adjusted odds ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.87–0.95). When integrating Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-linked data from 2014 to 2017 and more recent unlinked data from the Diabetes Collaborative Registry through 2019 (total N = 411,465), these therapeutic differences persisted, including among subgroups with established cardiovascular and kidney disease. CONCLUSIONS While MA plans enable greater access to preventive care, this may not translate to improved intermediate health outcomes. MA beneficiaries are also less likely to receive newer antihyperglycemic therapies with proven outcome benefits in high-risk individuals. Long-term health outcomes under various Medicare plans requires surveillance.
Estimated Number of COVID-19 Infections, Hospitalizations, and Deaths Prevented Among Vaccinated Persons in the US, December 2020 to September 2021
Authors: Molly K. Steele, Alexia Couture, Carrie Reed, Danielle Iuliano, Michael Whitaker, Hannah Fast, Aron J. Hall, Adam MacNeil, Betsy Cadwell, Kristin J. Marks, Benjamin J. Silk
Journal: JAMA Network Open (2022)

<h3>Importance</h3> The number of SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19–associated hospitalizations and deaths prevented among vaccinated persons, independent of the effect of reduced transmission, is a key measure of vaccine impact. <h3>Objective</h3> To estimate the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19–associated hospitalizations and deaths prevented among vaccinated adults in the US. <h3>Design, Setting, and Participants</h3> In this modeling study, a multiplier model was used to extrapolate the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19–associated deaths from data on the number of COVID-19–associated hospitalizations stratified by state, month, and age group (18-49, 50-64, and ≥65 years) in the US from December 1, 2020, to September 30, 2021. These estimates were combined with data on vaccine coverage and effectiveness to estimate the risks of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. Risks were applied to the US population 18 years or older to estimate the expected burden in that population without vaccination. The estimated burden in the US population 18 years or older given observed levels of vaccination was subtracted from the expected burden in the US population 18 years or older without vaccination (ie, counterfactual) to estimate the impact of vaccination among vaccinated persons. <h3>Exposures</h3> Completion of the COVID-19 vaccination course, defined as 2 doses of messenger RNA (BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273) vaccines or 1 dose of JNJ-78436735 vaccine. <h3>Main Outcomes and Measures</h3> Monthly numbers and percentages of SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19–associated hospitalizations and deaths prevented were estimated among those who have been vaccinated in the US. <h3>Results</h3> COVID-19 vaccination was estimated to prevent approximately 27 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 22 million to 34 million) infections, 1.6 million (95% UI, 1.4 million to 1.8 million) hospitalizations, and 235 000 (95% UI, 175 000–305 000) deaths in the US from December 1, 2020, to September 30, 2021, among vaccinated adults 18 years or older. From September 1 to September 30, 2021, vaccination was estimated to prevent 52% (95% UI, 45%–62%) of expected infections, 56% (95% UI, 52%-62%) of expected hospitalizations, and 58% (95% UI, 53%-63%) of expected deaths in adults 18 years or older. <h3>Conclusions and Relevance</h3> These findings indicate that the US COVID-19 vaccination program prevented a substantial burden of morbidity and mortality through direct protection of vaccinated individuals.